update_catalog_alias

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It excels by detailing optional parameter semantics ('If None, target is unchanged'), special unbinding behavior ('Pass empty string "" to unbind the alias'), the return format ('JSON with status and updated alias details'), and a concrete example. This gives the agent a clear picture of side effects and output.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and efficient. It leads with a one-sentence summary, then uses labeled sections (Args, Returns, Example) to organize details. Every sentence provides value, and the example clarifies usage without unnecessary verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, all parameter semantics, return format, and an example. The presence of an output schema doesn't reduce the need for behavioral detail, and the description provides it comprehensively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has no descriptions for its 4 parameters, so the description fully compensates by explaining each one: hostname, alias_name, alias_target (including the None vs empty-string distinction), and owner (list and None meaning). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema and is essential for correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Update an existing catalog alias.' It explicitly states what can be changed (target catalog or owner ACL), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_catalog_alias and delete_catalog_alias by focusing on modifications to an existing alias.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context on when to use the tool: 'Can change the target catalog the alias points to, or update the owner ACL.' It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or direct to alternatives, but the context is sufficient. Since it doesn't provide exclusions or alternative tool references, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.